Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medicalization of sex is part of an already-in-place discursive problem that can be illuminated by looking at efforts to sexualize the medical. "Erectile dysfunction," "female sexual dysfunction," and their real and imagined pharmacopia, do not constitute the medicalization of sex; they are effects of sex already having been-to borrow a term from Peter Conrad ( 1992 )-healthicized. The equation of sex and health, as cultural common sense, has made health seem like the natural discourse for thinking about sex in the first place. Reversing the terms of this special issue, and using the methodology of rhetorical analysis, this article looks at the person with cancer as a sexualized subject-someone whose health is represented as intimately tied to his or her sex life. It suggests that, in public discourse-and notably in movies and on television-sex is the comic ending of the illness narrative. In light of this narrative move, the ability to have good sex joins the ability to be positive and cheerful as a (Western) cultural imperative of illness experience, in general, and cancer experience, in particular. Public representations of illness virtues often fail, then, to answer realistically the compelling question, "How shall I be ill?"
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".